Springer retracts study that supports rogd and goes against pro trans narrative.

[Robz]

A major publisher of studies has decided to retract a paper that goes against the trans activists claims. The reason? The participants consented to participate in the survey but not an explicit agreement to consent to have the results published in a scientific study journal. Not only is there a double standard for pro trans activists claims, such as the usts survey and multiple resulting studies from the usts survey, but it ends up undermining "faith" in the scientific community.

https://archive.is/dikoh

The publisher now maintains that the retraction is due to improper participant consent. While the respondents consented to the publication of the survey’s results, Springer insists they didn’t specifically agree to publication in a scholarly or peer-reviewed journal. That’s a strange and retrospective requirement, especially considering that Springer and other major publishers have published thousands of survey papers without this type of consent.

The idea is to manufacture the appearance of scientific consensus where there is none. The pseudo-consensus then allows such American medical associations as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society to recommend body-altering procedures for children

 

[johngaltshrugged]

"faith" in the scientific community.

Faith in the scientific community... what's that look like?
That hit the road even before faith in the medical experts or the media became non-existent

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Kinda like producing batches of mail-in votes after midnight when it looks like you’re gonna lose an election.